add_label

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add behavioral context: labels join nets either within one sheet or across the design. It does not discuss persistence, overwrite behavior, or prerequisites, but the additive 'Place' action and net-joining semantics are the most relevant traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and then explain the key parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is sufficient for basic placement and for choosing local vs global, but it leaves 'hierarchical' undefined and gives no guidance on coordinates or placement context. With an output schema present, not describing the return value is acceptable, but the parameter gaps still leave room for missing calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'kind' and its local/global effect, but the required text, x_mm, y_mm, and schematic_path parameters are not described beyond their schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Place a net label', a clear verb+resource statement that names the object created. It differentiates the tool from siblings like add_wire and add_component mostly through the label-specific terminology, but it does not explicitly contrast with those alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives concrete guidance for choosing the kind parameter (local vs global labels), which helps an agent select the right variant. However, it does not say when to prefer add_label over sibling tools or state any exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.